Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-01-23
THE TOBACCO
PROFESSOR PURYEAR's VIEWS ON
THIS IMPORTANT SUBJECT.

writes as follows:
Let us consider the tobacco-grower
Tobacco ia his great staple, his supreme,
and frequently his only, reliance FOR
ready money. II is an article of uni
versal demand the world over. The re-
stricted areas on which it can be sue
cessfully cultivated utterly negative the
idea that more is produced than the
world demands. If the farmer cannot
sell at rcmuneratiye prices all he can
produce we may be certain that the
cause is artificial, not natural. Unfortu-
nately, 70 Oh hut the wilfully blind
Tie cause is abundantly patent. For
twenty years tobacco has been taxed
from 100 to 800 per cent Our
tobacco crops have been paying g, H.,
20. ~. ~, 40 cents per pound to the
Government. and hardly five to the
man 10y whose sweat and toll and
capital il is produced. What n
spectacle for gods and men ! When
il seeks the markets Of the world, it
bears with it this heavy tax, which,
of course, forms n part of the selling
price. Fewer can purchase it in CON
sequence of its high price, and those
who DO purchase less. Consumption
is diminished, and this explains the
over-production Of tobacco in Nir-
ginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky.
Over-production, if we may so call it,
results from impediments placed by law
in the way of sale. Thousands and tens
of thousands of families are deprived Of
the common comforts of life who
would be prosperous and happy but for
the fact that their property is rendered
unsaleable, or less saleable, by unjust
legislation. What an outrage!
In still another way is the farmer in
iurcd. There are three elements IN
the selling price Of manufactured to-
baCCo. One'is the tax, and that is con
slant. The manufacturer must, OF
course, get that back when he sells.
The second is the cost Of manufacture,
and that, within very narrow limits, l.
also constant, and this, too, he must
Get back when he sells. The third Is
the cost Of the lcaf-the money the
farmer gets-and this is variable. The
whole pressure of trade and COMPETE
ton bears down on the only elastic
element in the price of manufactured
tobacco and il IS at this point, and
this only, that the farmer is concerned.
Again: BY the operation of the in
tcrnal-revcnue laws, only strong CAPT
talists can engage IN the manufacture OF
tobacco. Before a box can be shipped
the stamps must lie applied, the tax
paid. Men of small means can't raise
these heavy taxes IL advance Of sales
They must f0rcoO the bussincss and
leave TO few capitalists. Even under
the most favorable circumstances, when
the raw article is offered for sale,
the buyers are few, the bidding languid,
and prices, Of course, are low. But
worse than this may happen. and does.
happen. The rich few who mAnufac-
turo tobacco can easily combine against
the poor many who have the article for
sale. The farmers have no redress. /
few, bloGted with wealth, purchase, 10y
virtue Of the advantage which the las
gives them, the tobacco crops at prices
but little above, and frequently less and
largely less, than the cost of produo-
ton. The tobacco crops thus make the
rich few richer, and leave the poor
many, who produce tie crops, rs poor
as before. and often poorer. And so
the tendency Of al laws that contra
yene the natural laws cf trade IS to
make millionaires and monopoiists Of
tie few ard to bring poverty and
shame on the implied many who toll.
How long! O. how long
Some arguments are Offered in sup
port Of this arbitrary, unjust, and uu-
equal scheme Of Federal taxation that
are so weak that they might be ignored
in the discussion OF the subject. Yet /
viii briefly notice them.
II is said that the consumer pays
the tax and that nobody is hurt.
How TIE producer Is hurt has already
been shown. But, granting to tn
argument all il claims, is the con-
smmer Of tobacco nobody? Vast
numbers of our people use tobacco !;
and is u man to be held Pariah, 10
be considered the Just victim Of I'M
Just laws, simply because he chaws
tobacco? If butter had to pay tax
of a dollar a pound before 1t could
be sold would not the dgiryman
think that somebody was hurt ? What
mystic property belongs to tobacco that
protects ii from a similar result? But
mCn ought to eat butter and ought not
to use tobacco. Who knows this?
Who, at least, has the right to say it?
Certainly not the Government. 1t has
fully as much right to dictate my APP
parcl or prescribe my bill OF fare.
Such matters inherc in ones manhood,
to tamper with which viii Justly arouse
even the indignation of a slave.
What n strange doctrine is this we
are combating That Government can
tax the products of the soil to any cX-
tent, and that nobody viii suffer from
the drain If it were true, then p0liti
cal economy hes taught its last lesson,
and taxation is the panacea of all hui
man ills
The whole intornal-rcyenue system
ought 10 ~ tAlil tAttNl at oliN1- LIZ" ~ =
onue it yields is not needcd-it does no
good. but vast, incalculable harm. Let
the money stay where it belonSs-that
is, in the pockets of those who have
made It. Is farming a hurtful and dis
honorable calling that it should bear
such heavy and unequal burdens?
Congress, in the several reductions
already made, has admitted the force Of
the argument against the tobacco tax.
Let it follow the argument to its logical
conclusion, and remove the tax entirely.
The revenue derived from tobacco
during the last fiscal year was, in round
numbers, $2S, GOO, coo. Onceit was much
more. So small an item ought certainly
to be cancelled. 1t is a matter of the
utmost insignifcance as a part Of the
Federal revenue, but of overwhelming
concern to those who have it to pay.
Let Congress, if it can do no more, re-
peal, at least, the tobacco tax.
b. PURYEAR.
"a
1ufcr-statetGo commerce BIZ.